[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

It's been a personal gripe of mine for a while that any time a gay person has been given a job on television it's been largely due to their exaggerated personalities and a flippant job in either fashion, celebrity culture or dancing.

But then, on the other hand, one could argue that me finding fault with effeminate presenters and 'stereotypes' could be seen as part of the problem: some masculine-acting gay men in particular seem fervent in trying to 'normalise' themselves and appear more manly than most straight guys bother to be. Which asks the question: what is wrong with femininity? Everyone's encountered the odd gay guy who's extremely over-the-top and irritating (most of them are cast on Big Brother) but is having a camp voice and a less conventional sense of men's fashion all that objectionable?

It's a bit of a catch-22. Some LGBT want more representation in the media, but then get a bit annoyed if they're not exactly like them. But I do still think there's a casual kind of "haha look at this queen" role that's filled in most mainstream representations of 'a gay', and you have to wonder if that's pandering to the narrow-minded. One very much doubts that Rylan, Gok Wan (although he's not too extreme), Louie Spence, Bruno Tonioli, Alan Carr, Louis Walsh and John Barrowman are taken all that seriously. I don't know if I can name many TV personalities that are queer but not a joke figure. Ellen DeGeneres, Sandi Toksvig, Sue Perkins and Stephen Fry are all that spring to mind. So basically the women

The issue of visibility in the media very much hinges on how "visible" it is, I guess.

Apart from Gok Wan being in the fashion industry I find him really un-camp (if that's a word)

Graham Norton is very camp but is still taken seriously as a presenter I think